cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Stokes on January 15, 2011, 01:12:47 am

Title: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Stokes on January 15, 2011, 01:12:47 am

Grab a drink, pull up a chair, and get comfy, ‘cause this post is longer than most. Anyways:

After seeing countless threads declaring that some weapon type is overpowered, or underpowered, I started thinking about the pros and cons of the various weapon types as well as their place on the battlefield as a whole. My conclusion is that on the whole, the various weapon types are pretty well balanced against each other and that any incongruencies are probably due to player skill, a lack of understanding of the way the game is meant to be balanced, or in rare cases, a particular item being slightly too over/underpowered.

First, it is important to remember that Warband is first and foremost a skill-based game. A better player will more often beat a lesser player one on one. The larger the gap between skill levels, the less equipment plays into the outcome of the fight.

But, in order to discuss game balance, we first need to assume that all players are of equal/comparable skill and then see how various equipment types match up to each other. If one single weapon type dominates the field in all cases, then we have imbalance. If a weapon type is stronger against some weapon types but weaker against others, then we are closer to balance and balance = variety and fun.

First, let’s talk about the three basic infantry roles on the battlefield: The shield fighter (polearm/1h), The non-shield fighter (polearm/2h), and the ranged user (xbow/bow/throw).  I have seen complaints against all three types. Archers often complain that shields are too powerful, Two-handers or polearm users who do not use a shield complain that ranged weapons are too powerful, and of course shield users complain of being “spammed” by two-handers or polearm users.

In my opinion, many of these complaints are born out a misunderstanding of the way Warband works. The way I see it, there is a soft “Rock Paper Scissors” mechanic in the game that many players don’t seem to understand. I say “soft” because player skill is much more important than "having the right counter". This isn't WoW, it's a medieval FPS. (Yes, in this case it's also an RPG, I get it!)

Here is a diagram of how the three basic infantry archetypes should be and are balanced in my opinion:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



What this diagram shows is that, assuming all players are of equal skill, 1h shield users should have a slight advantage over ranged users, ranged users should have a slight advantage over 2h shield-less users, and 2h shield-less users should have a slight advantage over 1h shield users. This means that, based on equipment, you should be able to beat players of equal skill slightly more often based on the equipment you bring to the field.

What happens then is some equipment types are naturally more suited to fighting particular enemies. When shielders complain about being “spammed” by two-handed users, in many cases they are simply complaining about being defeated by their natural counter. Likewise, when two-handers complain that ranged weapons are too powerful, they are simply complaining about their own natural counter… forgetting of course the speed and damage advantage they gain by not using a shield in melee.

Now that my “philosophy of balance” has been explained, let’s take a look at each weapon proficiency type.

(click to show/hide)

One-handed
One handed weapons are primarily used with a shield for defense. Shields are the only thing that protect against projectiles, and using a shield in a fight allows the user to block from multiple directions, multiple enemies, and multiple weapon types. Shields provide the easiest defense abilities at the cost of some speed and damage.
-   1h has some customization abilities, but is somewhat limited in choices. It basically comes down to weak, but quick swords, slow, but powerful maces, or moderately fast axes that crush other shields.
-       One handers can effectively defend against multiple enemies (2h users can effectively attack against multiple enemies)
-   PROtip: 1h users can gain some extra speed and damage if they find they are being attacked faster than they can retaliate by putting away their shield. They lose some defense capabilities of course, but depending on their weapon, they can often fight as quick or sometimes even quicker than their two-handed or polearm bretheren.

Bottom Line: Extra defense at the cost of offensive power and very limited weapon choices.

Why I think it's balanced: If you use a shield you are able to defend against the most types of attacks and if you play defensively, this is the build for you. I've seen shielders take on 3+ enemies because they can block from so many directions at once. Also, 1h weapons are fast when used without a shield, so if you're struggling for speed, you can still drop the shield on occasion for that extra boost.

Possible fixes:
I don’t have very much experience in cRPG with 1h-shield builds so my advice is limited. I have heard many players complain that the weight and speed on shields is such that they become almost a liability in melee combat, rather than an important defensive boost. Without much experience I tend to agree with this sentiment, however I leave the reader to judge. Also they have relatively limited weapon choices compared to the other melee proficiencies, but I think that is the trade off you get for gaining the use of the shield.

Two-handed
Two handed weapons are arguably the fastest and most powerful weapons in melee. They sacrifice the defensive power of the shield for the extra reach and damage of the two-handers. Unfortunately they can only block in one single direction, and once engaged (they have put away their shield), they are easy targets for ranged. Often a two-hander’s best defense is a good offense – this has led many to accuse two-handers of “spamming” attacks.
-   Two handed is more versatile than 1h in terms of weapon choices. From quick swords, to long swords, to axes, to mauls, they have more options than one handed which gives them a bit more versatility in melee.
-       Two handers can effectively attack against multiple enemies (one handers can effectively defend against multiple enemies)
-   You MUST learn to manual block to play Two-handed effectively. In my opinion learning to play two-handed well takes more time and effort than 1h + shield, simply because of this fact.

Bottom Line: Offensive beast, but vulnerable from ranged and the players ability to manual block.

Why I think 2h are balanced: Two handers are fast, powerful, and deadly, but they are toast from ranged users. They need to drop their shield to fight. Two handers are good dueling weapons, but this is sometimes impractical in large battles. In order for 2h to be effective in large fights, they must learn to turn their defensive into offense. Good players use 2h well by dishing out more than they take. Call it spam, I call it playing 2h effectively.

Possible Fixes:
I’ll start by saying I’m a bit biased towards two handed, as it is my favorite class. Aside from perhaps tweaking some of the weapons (I’m looking at you, barmace), I think the class as a whole is in a good spot. Many disagree, but I think this comes from a lack of understanding of the two-hander’s place as a massive damage dealing monster.

Polearm
Polearms are by far the most versatile weapon class. They can be used with a shield, without a shield, on horseback, on foot, they’re excellent at long range, excellent at short range, they have all three types of damage in abundance, they have some of the fastest weapons as well as some of the slowest and most damaging. Polearms rock.
-   You can find a counter for almost anything in the polearm proficiency. They can do the duty of a two-hander, yet still fight as a shielder if the need arises. Besides that, they also carry the only dedicated cavalry killer, (pike), as well as the preferred dedicated cavalry weapon, (lance).

Bottom line: Powerful and incredibly, incredibly versatile for only one type of wpf.

Why I think it's balanced: Polearms fill a variety of roles and they do each well. Polearms are the necessary ingredient for cavalry and anti cavarly and the battlefield just wouldn't be the same without polearms. Polearms are the ultimate support weapon with their reach, but good players can also duel with them pretty well. On the downside, most polearms must be used without a shield to be effective, which balances polearms out with ranged users.

Possible fixes:
If anything is “overpowered” about polearms, it’s that somebody with a polearm can fulfill so many different roles on the battlefield, just based on weapon choice. In my opinion, I think polearms are fine, however and the only thing that I would like to see is the longer polearms doing less damage at point blank range. I’ve been killed many times or had 75% of my health destroyed by people using the longest polearms even when I’m literally facehugging them. In fact, I say this for all weapons. If you’re using a longer weapon you should do considerably less damage up close, in my opinion. Other then that, polearms are great. Oh, and using a polearm with a shield is pitiful in speed and damage and is SO easy to block. Please, at least allow the shield/polearm user to do an up attack and a down attack... many mods already do this and I think this is a GREAT fix.

Archery
Archery takes a lot of skill-point investment (not to mention player skill investment) to master. Also, archers must wear the lightest of armor to stay competitive. For most, archery is far from a secondary skill since you need a lot of PD and wpf to get hits and kills. The cut damage also makes them deal lower damage per hit than crossbows or ranged and they are the only ranged weapon that cannot aim indefinitely due to fatigue.  Still, with the right skillpoint investments, archery is very deadly and is still a very popular class
 - The archer’s ability to rapidly fire really changes the battlefield as well, since even if the archer doesn’t hit, he forces the enemy to pull out their shields and face in the direction of the archer, potentially giving your team the advantage in melee.

Bottom line: Skill point heavy, hard to master, takes many hits to kill, but very very useful on the battlefield.

Why I think it's balanced: Archers may get less kills on average than other players, but more often then not they are the battle changers. They can attack most easily without any fear of harm and every hit they give distracts the enemy and allows the team to do well. They are also the necessary counter for massed infantry, good two-handers, and light cavalry. On the downside, it takes a lot of points and time to master archery, which balances it out.

Possible fixes: I think archery is in a pretty good spot right now. I’m not so sure about the damage nerf they received in the last patch, but so far I think it balances out with the fact that shields are smaller now. Also, I think the longbow could use some love. It’s sooo slow for only 30 damage. That’s my own personal opinion however and probably not very high on the “needed balance” list.

Crossbows
Easy to use, easy to master, low skill point investment. For 100 wpf you can get crossbows up to decent accuracy and damage. Sure, their slow to reload, but if you have cover, once you’ve reloaded you have an infinite amount of time to aim your shot, which can be invaluable. Crossbows are a great secondary skill for hybrids.

Bottom line: Very powerful for minimal skill investment

Why I think it's balanced: A bit more expensive to maintain than archery, and probably less game changing due to the very slow rate of fire. Still, you can get some good hits and kills with it and it's less skill point intensive, which balances it out.

Possible fixes: Some complain about the price of crossbows. I tend to agree. Crossbows are meant to be the little cousin of archers for those who don’t want to have to mess up their builds with skill points in power draw and athletics. With their price, however, you can’t really bring in a crossbow and your good gear very economically. Perhaps this is chadz’s intention. If so, leave it be. Some complain about the damage as well. I think damage is fine, considering it retains it’s pierce damage. I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion.

Throwing
Ahh, throwing. I’ve seen many complaints about throwing lately. I have less experience with throwing in cRPG, although I did play it a lot in native, so bear with me.  I’m speaking mostly out of observation rather than first hand experience.  With the recent archer nerfs and the speed nerfs to crossbows compared to native, throwing has become the number 1 one hit wonder weapon for ranged. Still, like archery, it takes a large amount of skill points to get high damage and you get a lot less ammunition. The projectiles are slower too, and easier to dodge. I think it’s most frustrating to die to throwing, however, since half the time it just seems like bad luck rather than your enemies skill was the deciding factor in why you’re lying dead with an axe in your head,– and most of the time you’re totally right. Throwing is so inaccurate that sometimes it’s better for the enemy to be aiming AT you. Then they’ll have a better chance of missing!

Bottom line: Inaccurate, slow projectiles, but they pack a helluva punch. Enough to one shot in some cases.

Why I think it's balanced: Inaccurate, takes a lot of points, slow moving projectiles, and short range balances out with very high damage

Possible Fixes:
Maaaaaybe the damage should be lowered… Maybe. I’d hate to see throwers disappear due to nerfs, as annoying as they are. You know what, one second thought, I think it’s fine. It’s still freaking annoying though  :evil: Also, throwers are able to throw one after another very fast, which some think may need a nerf. I’m undecided on this, but it is worth thinking about.

Conclusion, and a note on Cavalry

The final thing to look at is the effect of cavalry. I won't go into detail on cavalry since I don't think they fit as well into the "rock paper scissors" type of balance that the infantry have. Having a horse is expensive, but it also drastically changes your role on the battlefield. You might be fast and powerful, but skilled players will still be able to take you down.

Right now Cavalry are very expensive to maintain and are a bit rarer on the battlefield. Pikes offer a good counter to cavalry, and having a few pikemen with the infantry is very effective in stopping cavalry. Archers, crossbows, and throwers are also great counters to light cavalry as long as they're paying attention. Flanking light cavalry often take these guys out unawares as they focus their attention elsewhere. I think this is how it should be... Heavy cavalry are very very powerful, on the other hand. They can be a game changer. However, they are very expensive. I don't particularly like their power or their price, and I think both should be lowered, but that is simply personal preference.  Light cavalry are fine, however, and I think for their price they should be as good as they are.

Thanks for reading. Discuss!

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Xenocide on January 15, 2011, 01:24:00 am

Isn't it pike -> cav -> rang -> inf -> pike? i know it worked like that in age of empires ^^.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Paul on January 15, 2011, 11:18:57 am

Very nice work. Soon alot of the lobbyist scum will start their whine in this thread though.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Stokes on January 15, 2011, 11:45:24 am

Quote from: Xenocide on January 15, 2011, 01:24:00 am

Isn't it pike -> cav -> rang -> inf -> pike? i know it worked like that in age of empires ^^.

Yeah, generally this is true, however I wanted to focus more on individual proficiencies, since that is where most of the complaints seem to lie. Two-handers complain archers are too strong, shielders complain two-handers are too strong, etc.

Also, in Warband at least, (and historically too in some notable cases), if the archers are paying attention they can do some solid damage to Cavalry.

Quote from: Paul on January 15, 2011, 11:18:57 am

Very nice work. Soon alot of the lobbyist scum will start their whine in this thread though.

Yeah, well, right now it doesn't look like most of them know how to find their way deep into the dark hole of "Balance Discussion". We're like three subforums away from general discussion, haha.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Magikarp on January 15, 2011, 12:27:41 pm

On the cavalry thing, I think Light Horses are a bit to expensive to repair atm.

While the cost forbuying them is fine, the cost to repair them is too high.

I think (light?) horses should therefore have a lower repair cost than other items.

It's just so expensive to ride around with a shield, a sword, a lance, mediocre armour and a light horse. While it should be possible with that setup to have a reasonable income.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Morieff on January 15, 2011, 02:06:44 pm

I agree for light cavalery. Really expensive to maintain my courser and less cavalery implying more archer/throwers etc.

Stokes thanks for your well-constructed and argumented post.

I agree with you for your vision of balancing, except about my post about balancing and some ranged-char issues.

Classes are balanced, but not the stats. The most important is agi. You can't think being viable without invest a lot in agi. Str is not really important by now. That why i made post about :

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,923.0.html

About ranged classes i think a small nerf about damage is needed. I'm usually 1hit by throwers, why not ? But i'have currently 29Str,7 IF, and Lamellar armor@48+8 gauntlets. Something like 75 pv? A bit too powerfull ? For archer, i suggest speed nerf, to avoid automatic magnums bow. Damage is fine. I preferred before last patch, but too much whines...

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: huscarl_johnson on January 15, 2011, 02:54:10 pm

put like, hooves stamping all over the three archetypes and you might be slightly less wrong

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Teeth on January 15, 2011, 03:36:04 pm

The game is very balanced now in my opinion, im a shieldless 2h and I dont feel like being constantly raped by throwers and other rangeds. 1h with shields are still a challenge cause they strike pretty fast even with their heavyweight shields. I feel really good about the balance.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: zagibu on January 15, 2011, 03:58:17 pm

There are some problems with your analysis.

1. As can be seen on the picture you provided, shields can be carried by anyone. This means that the 2h/polearm class has the same advantages against archers as 1h+shield. You might take 1 arrow, if you are unlucky, but a dedicated archer is still mostly dead.
2. Archers are also 2handers or polearmers. It's easy to build a 15/24 or an 18/21 archer at level 31 with high WPF in both archery and one of the melee skills. And the spam problem allows them to be very effective in melee, too.
3. A 2h or polearm has another advantage you didn't really cover, probably because you don't play a lot of siege, where this is important. Their range allows them to be used from the second row, killing an enemy that is occupied with a shielder. I often pick up flamberges, long spiked maces or similar on the battlefield, and although I have no WPF in those skills, I get around 25% of my kills with those weapons, from the second row.
4. In tight spots, which are common on siege maps, the short reach of 1h is actually an advantage. That's the reason why on siege servers, 1h+shield users can rise much higher in the scoreboard than on battle servers.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Joker86 on January 15, 2011, 04:15:38 pm

I think you have a small flaw in your argumentation, which doesn't change much though:

I do NOT think 2hd is supposed to be faster than 1hd. 2hd already has got high reach and high damage, and if you can block manually the shield of the 1hd won't make this up, I think. And finally I think it's common sense you can swing small, light weapons faster than big, nasty ones.

(I am not a lobby whiner, I am 2hd polearm AGI spammer)

Despite of that it's just a perfect post, although I would say it's a bit too sketchy. For example I wouldn't put pikemen and two handers into one category, as well as there are greater differences between archers, crossbowmen and throwers. (Especially latter often are closer to shield infantry than to ranged).

And finally: you can't take some of the existing classes, put them into a rock-paper-siccors-system, and ignore some other classes (like cavalry), which could change the whole system, because they could have a place between two other classes of the circle, or even being located at several places of the circle, making something like a 3d-construction of it.

But I can understand why you are "afraid" of evaluating cavalry. I think it's a rather overpowered class due to biased thinking from history, movies, games and especially M&B singleplayer. Enabling a player to perform as battering ram (like heavy cav) can NEVER achieve balance, so this must NEVER be possible.

I wrote it somewhere else: cavalry has severe advantages over infantry.

- horse speed grants greater protection
- horse speed grants greater flexibility
- horse speed grants higher speed bonus
- horse knockdown is unblockable, usually you need to inflict high damage with a blunt weapon for this effect, and those can be blocked in many cases
- horses cause bump damage and weaken or even kill your enemies by simply pressing [W]

You have to pay this with:

- a few points in riding skill
- higher upkeep

As you can see, the few skill points don't make this up really, so the rest needs to be balanced by the upkeep. The problem is: I don't want to eliminate cavalry from the battlefield, but all those advantages need a really high upkeep for balance! So the only reasonably solution is a severe cavalry nerf concerning stats, skills and equipment.


Finally some basic rules concerning balance:

1.: The efficiency (=amount of frags) of a player should be equal to the effort (= skill, concentration, risk) he puts into the game.

2.: The game always needs to be balanced between the player, not between one player and the game. This means that equipment has to be balanced ONLY by the efficiency on the battlefield, and not by the time (= XP or gold) it took for a certain player, to achieve it. Best example: the atomic bomb, killing the entire enemy team once thrown. Balancable by price or required stats? Answer: never! Once a thing is on the battlefield you don't care how long the owner had to grind for it. His grinding has no effect to the game balance at this moment. Price balancing is just to adjust the motivation aspect of developing your character, nothing more!

3.: Although the rock-paper-siccors-system (RPSS) is a good base and often quite fun, it has to be limited somehow, and made up by skill. Greatest issue here: horse archer vs. 2hd infantry. Currently the HA is a laserblaster, burning the paper and melting stone and siccors.

4.: In Warband skills has always to be more important than stats and equipment.

5.: Classes have to be balanced BOTH by the average player skill AND the maximum possible efficiency of a player who achieved mastership. There is no sense in a mostly balanced class which either grants skilled player a massive advantage OR limits them more than other classes. Also a class which is rather difficult to play, but once mastered unstoppably powerful, is breaking game balance. This is a conflict with point 1, but it's obvious such a class would sooner or later be overrepresented and thus dominating.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Nindur on January 15, 2011, 04:59:31 pm

How the hell can you think of the HA now as a laser blaster? Maybe you play on EU but on the NA server there are maybe 3 good Horse Archers, Murchad, Gash, and Loz, everyone else is a scrub that I laugh at with my 1h/sheild. HA got nerfed to pieces in the patch and I love it. I also agree with the OP first point,  that skill takes precedent over all. This is what determines who wins and who losses, I would gladly fight 80% of the NA players on a Plated charger using only a pitchfork. I think item and class balance does not affect the overly skilled players, a truely skilled player can play any class, using any range of items and win. For the average 'Pubby' I agree that balance is important because they don't understand the nuances of the game, things like if I feint and then chamber my attack most players will mindfreak and forget how to block and then die. Those things come with time and some fucking around with the different classes.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Brutal on January 15, 2011, 05:10:10 pm

Quote from: Joker86 on January 15, 2011, 04:15:38 pm

- a few points in riding skill

My cav alt as 7 riding point,i could have had 3 more agi or str with it. So I'm less "efficient " than a pure infantry.
 

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Guts on January 15, 2011, 05:26:29 pm

"I do NOT think 2hd is supposed to be faster than 1hd. 2hd already has got high reach and high damage, and if you can block manually the shield of the 1hd won't make this up, I think. And finally I think it's common sense you can swing small, light weapons faster than big, nasty ones."


a 2h isnt faster than 1h the 1h have the faster swing animation over the 2h plus that nasty left swing is faster than any swing i have even if i use the katana as well as the other swings but i will agree 2h have the reach and dmg if the 2h is using one of the larger swords (not including heirlooms) about the manual blocking a shield offers things manual blocking cant like protection from range we all have been shot mid melee then killed by the person we were fighting also if a 1h shield breaks there swings become faster and do more damage but yea i agree "SMALL AND LIGHT" but for example a popular sword the long espada roughly 105 length vs the longsword which is roughly  106 both around the same size ur gonna say u can swing that sword faster with one hand than if a person was swinging a longsword with 2 hands doesnt sound right to me

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Noble Crassius on January 15, 2011, 05:46:41 pm

"Crossbows
Easy to use, easy to master, low skill point investment. For 100 wpf you can get crossbows up to decent accuracy and damage. Sure, their slow to reload, but if you have cover, once you’ve reloaded you have an infinite amount of time to aim your shot, which can be invaluable. Crossbows are a great secondary skill for hybrids. - true

Bottom line: Very powerful for minimal skill investment" - / big bank investment.

"Why I think it's balanced: A bit more expensive to maintain than archery, and probably less game changing due to the very slow rate of fire. Still, you can get some good hits and kills with it and it's less skill point intensive, which balances it out." - You forgot to mention what also balances it out, slow reload speed even with points invested but thats ok too imo.

"Possible fixes: Some complain about the price of crossbows. I tend to agree. Crossbows are meant to be the little cousin of archers for those who don’t want to have to mess up their builds with skill points in power draw and athletics. With their price, however, you can’t really bring in a crossbow and your good gear very economically. Perhaps this is chadz’s intention. If so, leave it be. Some complain about the damage as well. I think damage is fine, considering it retains it’s pierce damage. I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion." - Idk where you found this bit of info seems unfounded. Damage nerf sucked for us xbowmen but I was ok with that, the real kick in the balls was the price increase coupled with the damage nerf. No one likes to pay more for less. We do less dps than any other ranged class, thats cool we don't invest that much but I would like the price to reflect that. I say keep the damage nerf but give us the old xbow prices before this hot-fix patch.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: bruce on January 15, 2011, 05:49:07 pm

Crpg doesn't have set classes. For instance, everyone can be both ranged and melee at the same time, and in fact every (sane) archer has a melee weapon. Sure, he will do somewhat worse then a dedicated melee fighter with it - but outcomes of melee are largely dependent on player skill.

So for instance, someone with a ranged weapon is also a twohander/polearmer, as is a thrower, etc. So the "shielders counter ranged" doesn't hold water, for instance. But that shielder can also be packing ranged (for instance, throwing meshes with shield use beautifully). So on and so forth. Excluding cavalry/horse ranged is a great shortcoming of your model.

I think we (as in, the mods, and ultimately, chadz) should just decide what type of combat do they want to see in CRPG the most and adjust stats/prices/etc accordingly. This was already done for archery (but reversed as they gave into whining for some reason), was done to horses (with much increased upkeep and reduction of horse speeds due to riding) since too much cavalry was showing up, etc, to crossbows (see above). If a third of the server starts packing throwing or bows or crossbows or horses, then it needs a nerf.

Of course, specific item balance is always a issue, players find the "win" weapons and they start massively poliferating, because everyone wants the advantage... but that's a different thing altogether, and fairly easily solved.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Teeth on January 15, 2011, 06:05:19 pm

Quote from: zagibu on January 15, 2011, 03:58:17 pm

There are some problems with your analysis.

2. Archers are also 2handers or polearmers. It's easy to build a 15/24 or an 18/21 archer at level 31 with high WPF in both archery and one of the melee skills. And the spam problem allows them to be very effective in melee, too.

What spam problem? I tried outspamming a 1h+shielder with my char with agi 19, wpf 149 and a tempered katana and i couldnt outspam him.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Nindur on January 15, 2011, 06:29:30 pm

Then your not fighting in an efficient way, alternativly, get an axe.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Seawied on January 15, 2011, 07:57:22 pm

Quote from: Nindur on January 15, 2011, 06:29:30 pm

Then your not fighting in an efficient way, alternativly, get an axe.

his point is that one of the fastest weapons available couldn't out-spam his opponent in the current patch. If you are able to out-spam your opponent, then it is your opponent, not yourself, who is fighting in an inefficient manner.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Noble Crassius on January 15, 2011, 08:35:50 pm

Spam is fine in this patch with the soft wpf cap no one can get really super fast anymore. People who complain about spam either 1. are new 2. failed with a build or 3. were just out fought.

Or 4. chose a high str build which ofc will be slow but usually these people know what they are getting into.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: zagibu on January 15, 2011, 09:02:06 pm

Or 5. notice that spammers get to the top of the scoreboards while doing nothing (besides cooking spiced ham). If you don't see the problem with that, fine.

If people come to you with a problem that doesn't affect you, do you just tell them to piss off? Or maybe you could still help them to fix the problem, unless of course, their problem is actually to your benefit. Then you'd ridicule them, delay them, oppose them in every way you could.

Fixing spam is only against the spammer's interest. If you have no problems with spam at the moment, like me, the fix won't affect you. But it will make the game better for other players and worse for the easymode leftclick buttonmashers. They can go play Tekken or something, we don't need them in M&B.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Seawied on January 15, 2011, 09:09:02 pm

Quote from: zagibu on January 15, 2011, 09:02:06 pm

Or 5. notice that spammers get to the top of the scoreboards while doing nothing (besides cooking spiced ham). If you don't see the problem with that, fine.

ya, I don't see this happening. If you get killed by a spammer, the problem is with your skill, not with spam. As people have already said before, out-spamming to the point of no counter is impossible in the current patch.

Heirlooms and WPF were nerfed, so you cannot reach this point anymore.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: EponiCo on January 15, 2011, 10:25:07 pm

Eh, what you forget, in battle mode (with many players) most of the kills are backstabs/gangs.
Of course if a pure spammer runs into someone who blocks, he's pretty much dead. But the way it usually works someone sees a distracted enemy, jumps and spams him before he even knows where from, and goes directly to the next distracted enemy (or possibly the enemy that miscalculated his chance to backstab him). So with enough awareness and a long fast weapon just relying on spam works fairly well. Especially since it's usually a huge chaos and most people get tunnelvision.

edit: But well, this has been this way since the first 100 man native servers. Problem is imo the failed speed simulation ... you are always sprinting and can change directions superfast, which also makes formations near impossible.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Stokes on January 15, 2011, 11:54:58 pm

Quote from: zagibu on January 15, 2011, 03:58:17 pm

There are some problems with your analysis.

1. As can be seen on the picture you provided, shields can be carried by anyone. This means that the 2h/polearm class has the same advantages against archers as 1h+shield. You might take 1 arrow, if you are unlucky, but a dedicated archer is still mostly dead.

Yes, anyone can carry a shield, this is true. However I've been playing as an Archer for the past week pretty consistently and I've noticed that many two-handers don't carry their shield out often and are usually easy targets. Many two handers only take their shield out if they are being actively targeted by archers. If an archer fires at at an enemy two hander as he is about to engage in melee, the two hander must choose to either retreat or enter into melee, exposing himself to arrows. When a two hander draws a shield he has literally lost all offensive capability, (unless he has invested other skillpoints, obviously).

It comes down to this: 1h with shield is always effective in combat. Two hander with a shield out is useless on the battlefield. As long as he keeps that shield up, he might as well not exist on the battlefield.

2. Archers are also 2handers or polearmers. It's easy to build a 15/24 or an 18/21 archer at level 31 with high WPF in both archery and one of the melee skills. And the spam problem allows them to be very effective in melee, too.


Yes, you bring up a good point. I wanted to talk about the effect of hybridization, but I didn't, simply to cut down on post size. I'll comment on it briefly here.

Basically by hybridizing and taking up two weapon proficiency skills, you can instantaneously move yourself around the SOFT "rock paper scissors" system, gaining an advantage in certain situations. Remember, I say SOFT, because player skill is almost always more important than just weapon choice or any artificial ideas about "rock paper scissors".  This game/mod is not an RPG. it is an FPS-RPG: Big difference.  My original post is taking a very focused look at three types of weapons and how they interact in ways where one type is slightly more effective versus another type.

3. A 2h or polearm has another advantage you didn't really cover, probably because you don't play a lot of siege, where this is important. Their range allows them to be used from the second row, killing an enemy that is occupied with a shielder. I often pick up flamberges, long spiked maces or similar on the battlefield, and although I have no WPF in those skills, I get around 25% of my kills with those weapons, from the second row.

4. In tight spots, which are common on siege maps, the short reach of 1h is actually an advantage. That's the reason why on siege servers, 1h+shield users can rise much higher in the scoreboard than on battle servers.

Good points on 3 and 4, I agree, and I didn't think about these weapon roles in Siege. I might have to quote you in the OP   :D

Quote from: Fallen_CrassiusV2 on January 15, 2011, 05:46:41 pm

"Crossbows
" I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion."

- Idk where you found this bit of info seems unfounded. Damage nerf sucked for us xbowmen but I was ok with that, the real kick in the balls was the price increase coupled with the damage nerf. No one likes to pay more for less. We do less dps than any other ranged class, thats cool we don't invest that much but I would like the price to reflect that. I say keep the damage nerf but give us the old xbow prices before this hot-fix patch.

Like I said, I agree that Crossbows might be too expensive in their current state. I stated that headshots are easier with a Crossbow, (in my opinion, remember), because I tend to get more head shots when I don't have to worry about getting my shot off quickly because of fatigue, as with bows.

Quote from: Joker86 on January 15, 2011, 04:15:38 pm

I think you have a small flaw in your argumentation, which doesn't change much though:

I do NOT think 2hd is supposed to be faster than 1hd. 2hd already has got high reach and high damage, and if you can block manually the shield of the 1hd won't make this up, I think. And finally I think it's common sense you can swing small, light weapons faster than big, nasty ones.

Ahh, yes. See on this point I disagree - to a point. (WARNING: Realism argument coming, avert your eyes if you're squeamish!) Given the same size and weight for a weapon, the guy using two hands is going to swing MUCH faster than the guy using one hand who also is carrying a sack of potatoes in his other hand(a shield).

So, now on to balance for the game... I think some two handed weapons, like the small katana, or any of the two-handed swords of similar size to one handed swords, should in fact be faster, since they do not gain much advantage over their other one handed counterparts. If the weapon is much longer than the one-handed weapons, then yes, it should be a bit slower, especially weapons like the Great Swords and the Flamberge. In my experience this is how it is already balanced, but I could be wrong, like I said, I don't use one handed in cRPG very much.


Despite of that it's just a perfect post, although I would say it's a bit too sketchy. For example I wouldn't put pikemen and two handers into one category, as well as there are greater differences between archers, crossbowmen and throwers. (Especially latter often are closer to shield infantry than to ranged).

And finally: you can't take some of the existing classes, put them into a rock-paper-siccors-system, and ignore some other classes (like cavalry), which could change the whole system, because they could have a place between two other classes of the circle, or even being located at several places of the circle, making something like a 3d-construction of it.

This is exactly why I didn't tackle some of the other "classes". I wanted to keep this is simple as possible, and once you add in all the other classes it can get more complicated.

But I can understand why you are "afraid" of evaluating cavalry. I think it's a rather overpowered class due to biased thinking from history, movies, games and especially M&B singleplayer. Enabling a player to perform as battering ram (like heavy cav) can NEVER achieve balance, so this must NEVER be possible.

Right, like I said, I am more concerned with the balance between what I see to be the three main infantry archetypes. I want to discredit the whiners who claim that this is not true by thoughtfully proving that, generally speaking, these three archetypes are balanced. Once we can establish that, we can focus our efforts on balancing the "fringe" classes and we can fit items into our existing ideas about class balance.

Discussing the relationship between, say, Cavalry, Pikemen, and Archers, would take a whole new thread I think... haha.


I wrote it somewhere else: cavalry has severe advantages over infantry.

- horse speed grants greater protection
- horse speed grants greater flexibility
- horse speed grants higher speed bonus
- horse knockdown is unblockable, usually you need to inflict high damage with a blunt weapon for this effect, and those can be blocked in many cases
- horses cause bump damage and weaken or even kill your enemies by simply pressing [W]

You have to pay this with:

- a few points in riding skill
- higher upkeep

As you can see, the few skill points don't make this up really, so the rest needs to be balanced by the upkeep. The problem is: I don't want to eliminate cavalry from the battlefield, but all those advantages need a really high upkeep for balance! So the only reasonably solution is a severe cavalry nerf concerning stats, skills and equipment.

I didn't plan on talking about cavalry here, but I have to say that on this point I severely disagree with you on the need to nerf cavalry into the ground AND increase upkeep. I am going to use my experience of M&B Warband Native multiplayer.

In Native multiplayer, Cavalry is powerful, but very situational. Cavalry always depends on the map and the terrain. I have seen matches in Native, where - organized through chat - literally the entire team went cavalry for a round on a map like Field by the River or Ruins. Usually, the sheer surprise and power of a huge cavalry charge meant an easy victory for that round.... BUT, the very next round, the other team went pikes and archers and hid inside ruins or on top of hills or near fences... giving horsemen a much harder time. Eventually everyone went back to infantry, because massed Cavalry wasn't cutting it anymore.

Also, cavalry in cRPG is already worse than their native counterparts, right? I mean it just got nerfed. The recent nerf further supports my arguement that cavalry are fine, citing Native as an example of my reasons why.

The one part where I fully agree with you, is when talking about the chargers and warhorses with massive armor.  These things just DO, NOT, DIE. It is getting very close to the equivalent of the "Nuke" weapon you mentioned in your post down below. It sometimes takes an entire team to bring one down. Sure, they're expensive, but thats not an adequate balancing tool. It would be just as stupid to add a "I win the round and everyone else dies" item for 1.000.000.000 gold. It's just stupid.

Finally some basic rules concerning balance:

1.: The efficiency (=amount of frags) of a player should be equal to the effort (= skill, concentration, risk) he puts into the game.

Yep, I think Warband does that mostly well.

2.: The game always needs to be balanced between the player, not between one player and the game. This means that equipment has to be balanced ONLY by the efficiency on the battlefield, and not by the time (= XP or gold) it took for a certain player, to achieve it. Best example: the atomic bomb, killing the entire enemy team once thrown. Balancable by price or required stats? Answer: never! Once a thing is on the battlefield you don't care how long the owner had to grind for it. His grinding has no effect to the game balance at this moment. Price balancing is just to adjust the motivation aspect of developing your character, nothing more!

Good point, I definitely agree. It's why I have a problem with plated chargers.

3.: Although the rock-paper-siccors-system (RPSS) is a good base and often quite fun, it has to be limited somehow, and made up by skill. Greatest issue here: horse archer vs. 2hd infantry. Currently the HA is a laserblaster, burning the paper and melting stone and siccors.

Well, in Native they definitely are... in cRPG it just seems they are extremely annoying. I'm working on a hybrid foot/mounted archer at the moment, and I can already forsee that I'm going to get many more kills on foot than mounted with my bow. HA is much more damaging psychologically, I think (Which is still very important! Psychological warfare helps win battles!).

4.: In Warband skills has always to be more important than stats and equipment.

Yep, already agreed. Still, equipment should change the scales at least a little bit. Which it does.

5.: Classes have to be balanced BOTH by the average player skill AND the maximum possible efficiency of a player who achieved mastership. There is no sense in a mostly balanced class which either grants skilled player a massive advantage OR limits them more than other classes. Also a class which is rather difficult to play, but once mastered unstoppably powerful, is breaking game balance. This is a conflict with point 1, but it's obvious such a class would sooner or later be overrepresented and thus dominating.

Yes, very important, and many forget this aspect of balance. It needs to be balanced for the average joe, but it also needs to be made so that a high skill player can't abuse it. I've seen games where this rule is forgotten and then either all the "pros" use one single unbeatable strategy or whatever or it goes the other way, and all the average players are using a single strategy that only the pros can beat.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Joker86 on January 16, 2011, 12:18:45 am

Just one single point I have to add, to make us finally agree at all points (as you are definitely right about 2handed Katanas, for example, or the HAs who are "annoying" in the best case):

I said you need to nerf cavalry, and you have two options: upkeep and stats.

I wrote "but all those advantages need a really high upkeep for balance!", which is my bad, as it should have been "but all those advantages would need a really high upkeep for balance!".

Actually chadz followed this "path", and I think this is wrong, as it eliminated most cavalry from the battlefields, but the remaining ones still had a broken effort/effect-ratio (in my eyes). So it's a rather bad solution, concerning cavalry players. All the other players should be quite happy, though.

In short: I am AGAINST an upkeep nerf, but FOR a stats nerf.

Oh, and btw. I think even light cavalry is still more effective in cRPG than in Native. Not to mention heavy cav.  :wink:

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Noble Crassius on January 16, 2011, 01:10:50 am

"I stated that headshots are easier with a Crossbow, (in my opinion, remember), because I tend to get more head shots when I don't have to worry about getting my shot off quickly because of fatigue, as with bows."

Ok I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Follow this trail of logic with me: we get one shot off in the time an archer can get 3-4(probably more) + archers get better accuracy so - who has the higher % chance of getting a headshot? We don't have to worry about fatigue but always on the edge of a xbowmens mind is if we miss (always a good chance of this as an xbowmen) that we probably won't be able to get to get another shot off.
 
Perhaps opinions, especially ones that are not supported by any facts at all, don't belong in a serious game balance discussion? 

+ an interesting post I stumbled upon

Gorath
Re: Archer build
« Reply #1 on: Today at 03:41:35 am »

    * Quote

Well, I'm partial to my build on Moneyshot, but every archer is different:

Level: 30

Str: 15
Agi: 21

PS: 5
PD: 5
ATH: 7
WM: 7

Bow: 140
2her: 100

*Khergit Bow, Longsword, 2x Bodkins, Tribal Warrior, Straw Hat, Leather gloves, Leather boots*

My reticule is nice and tight, and I can 2-shot most everyone in mail or less, heavier armors obviously require more depending on the armor.  Headshots are lethal period and relatively easy to aim for (as much as a headshot can be expected to be easy).  Only 100 in 2her, but with the longsword and agi I'm fast enough and hit hard enough to melee fairly well.  All in all I'm pretty happy with it."

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Stokes on January 16, 2011, 02:03:31 am

Quote from: Fallen_CrassiusV2 on January 16, 2011, 01:10:50 am

"I stated that headshots are easier with a Crossbow, (in my opinion, remember), because I tend to get more head shots when I don't have to worry about getting my shot off quickly because of fatigue, as with bows."

Ok I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Follow this trail of logic with me: we get one shot off in the time an archer can get 3-4(probably more) + archers get better accuracy so - who has the higher % chance of getting a headshot? We don't have to worry about fatigue but always on the edge of a xbowmens mind is if we miss (always a good chance of this as an xbowmen) that we probably won't be able to get to get another shot off.
 

You do bring up a good point, the higher rate of fire does technically give a better chance of a headshot. I guess technically speaking, I have a much greater chance of getting a headshot with a machine gun than with an rifle, simply due to the rate of fire.

As far as accuracy, I'm not sold on the fact that archers are always more accurate than crossbows. I would agree that generally they are more accurate, but this is due to a higher skillpoint investment. Most archers have dedicated entire builds around archery with lots of WPF, whereas Crossbows are generally a secondary skill choice. Still, being able to aim indefinitely can't hurt the accuracy of crossbow users. Like you said though, many good archer builds do have better accuracy and rate of fire than crossbows, which I think is how it should be, considering they have invested much more of their character toward that weapon.

Besides that, it seems we agree on most everything else about crossbows, right? We both agree they are too pricey, but you said you were okay with the damage nerf, if price was reduced as well, which I agree with. We agree that they are good weapon for hybrids.  The only disagreement seems to be with my belief that headshots are easier with crossbows which I think is more a matter of preference rather than empiricism in any case.

Quote from: Fallen_CrassiusV2 on January 15, 2011, 05:46:41 pm

Perhaps opinions, especially ones that are not supported by any facts at all, don't belong in a serious game balance discussion? 

Quote from: Fallen_CrassiusV2 on January 15, 2011, 05:46:41 pm

but thats ok too imo.

You do it, too, let's keep the discussion civil, yes? I tried to convey, by saying "in my opinion", that my preference for headshots using crossbows was due more to preference and my experiences than any claim of my having infallible objective knowledge of such things.  :wink:

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Elmetiacos on January 16, 2011, 02:10:23 am

I don't really agree that two handers will beat sword and shield; not anymore. It used to be the case, pre-patch, with lower wpf cost and no soft level cap. Whether this is because the mechanics of combat mean there really is more of a "law of diminishing returns" with 1h+shield or because most of the best players were 2h I don't know. Pre-patch I usually could beat most shield users with my 195wpf - if I got impatient I could even take out a lolhammer. In my opinion, the 2h is the weapon to use if you are already superior in stats to your opponent(s). When this is the case, your superiority is accentuated. However, if your opponent is at least equal, the shield has the advantage: the 2h fighter's defence depends on both positioning and directional block being correct whereas that of the shield user depends only on positioning. The greater damage dealt by 2h weapons isn't enough to offset this - and taking out a lolhammer now only invites being spammed to death yourself by any reasonably competent opponent.

As Stokes has said, a 2h user who goes with a shield to face missiles takes himself out of the fight, but I'd add that he's also in danger: if you are a 2h fighter and are forced into combat while using a shield you are going to be hit and possibly killed unless someone arrives to rescue you. You will only have 1 or 2 points in shield, so your shield will soon be destroyed, you'll be stunlocked and hit - and if you try and switch weapons your opponent gets a free swing and you will be hit anyway. The shield user is also better equipped to take on multiple opponents. It used to be possible, but difficult, to do this as a 2 hander, but it's nearly impossible now for all but the very best - there are more shield users who wait for the right moment to strike and there are more good spear or pike users, making it impossible to defend yourself with a lateral block chambered. I see this reflected in the kills tables: the people are the top are still cavalry, but the next tier I've noticed are sword and shield fighters, not the old two hander wielding tin cans.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Chagan_Arslan on January 16, 2011, 02:30:10 am

Quote from: Joker86 on January 15, 2011, 04:15:38 pm

- horses cause bump damage and weaken or even kill your enemies by simply pressing [W]

and you kill others by simply pressing left mouse button

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Joker86 on January 16, 2011, 02:48:08 am

Only for archers. And even they have to aim.

Or do you really want to reduce meele to "clicking with mouse button"?  :?

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Polobow on January 16, 2011, 02:50:01 am

Great discussion! Most of the arguments are very thought out, and add to balancing. I like this, keep discussing :)!

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Michael on January 16, 2011, 03:16:08 am

I went through all the trouble and spend about 8 mins with reading the first post and I have to say you have overlooked some important things:

1) many archers carry a polearm/ 2h for melee. That breaks the system. Cos of their high agi they can outspam many 1h-shielders. This shouldnt be possible. Even the worst dedicated melee warrior should be able to defeat a pure archer in 1 vs 1. Otherwise the whole system you describe is broken, and therefore, I am sorry, your post kinda worthless.

2) heavy cavalry isnt very powerful any more. With the cheapest horse (Palfrey) I get more kills than with my heirloomed heavy plated charger. 


I am not in the mood to argue, but I guess neither you nor Paul has ever played with a plated charger.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Chagan_Arslan on January 16, 2011, 03:40:06 am

Quote from: Joker86 on January 16, 2011, 02:48:08 am

Or do you really want to reduce meele to "clicking with mouse button"?  :?

so your saying only archers press left mouse button if they want to kill someone..
and i dont want to reduce "meele" to anything but you reduced riding to pressing "w" and thats just silly, yeah because the other guy wont do anything if he will see you charging straight forward at him

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Grey on January 16, 2011, 03:45:45 am

Quote from: Michael on January 16, 2011, 03:16:08 am

1) many archers carry a polearm/ 2h for melee. That breaks the system. Cos of their high agi they can outspam many 1h-shielders. This shouldnt be possible.

It isnt: Archers have 18 str, so "high agi" is not something they have. Silly little wankers with pd3 bows are like moskitos, they are not archers. Archers have 18 str.

BUT REGARDLESS why is there still a discussion, ever patch changes the game, and people who post here are the problem: If you cannot find any class that you can rape people with, play another game, dont whine for the game to be changed. I suck at League of Legends, so I just dont play it. I do well in Warband (not just crpg) in any class. And, this, like ALL discussions about balance, can be summed up the same way I sum up all the "discussions" I stumble on:

Rock > Scissors > Paper > Rock > Scissors > Paper > Rock > Scissors > Paper > Rock > Scissors > Paper > (ad naseum)


Simple: Thanks to the whine during last patch, throwers are now godlike: Am I gonna start a thread about it? No. Archers got a MASSIVE nerf, but still people want them to do NO damage. Crossbows got a tiny nerf, and can still 1shot people easily: Most xbow users are whining. Light cav is cheap as chips to maintain, but a bunch of them are whining now too. I hate it, SO much: Polearms are MASSIVELY powerful, but to carry a big one you gotta put your shield away, so THOSE guys whine about ranged, 2h swordsmen got a massive nerf cause sheeple couldnt spot a stab animation and claimed it was the games fault. MAKES ME RAGE: With ANY of my chars, I will fight ANY other player: At range or in melee, be they on horses, foot, or on a building. When I die, I MADE THE MISTAKE, the game isnt broken.

A hint to OP: Archers never complain that shields are too powerful, personally I LOVE shielders, they move slowly and make nice targets when Im on my archer, on melee chars shielders are USUALLY an easykill (Obviosuly players like Cyber are an exeption to this) cause you can just spam them, since you can tract the number of skillpoints they wasted on shieldskill. On horseback, a shield is a MUST mosttimes, but on foot, putting points into IF or shield just shows a faulty philosophy: WHY are you planning on getting hit?? The plan is to AVOID being hit!

Stop changing the game guys, just l2p.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Mattressi on January 16, 2011, 04:54:31 am

So, Grey, essentially your post boils down to this: each patch nerfs and buffs some things, making some things UP and some OP, but we shouldn't complain because...we should L2P...? So you think it's fine that throwers are currently OP and that previously certain other builds were OP, because people shouldn't worry about balance and should, instead, learn to play the game? What kind of argument is that?? Do you just want everyone to play as the currently OP build, or should people just pretend it's fine to be raped whenever they meet a certain build in battle (like, everyone vs a plated charger pre-patch)? I believe the mod should keep being balanced until each build requires the same amount of skill and effort to do well. Certainly this is not an easy goal, but if there's almost a unanimous consensus from various types of players that a certain build is OP, why not discuss it and look into it? chadz can verify if a certain build/weapon/item is allowing people to get a far better k/d than others.

How about, everyone discusses the game balance until the game is reasonably balanced (i.e. no one build is clearly OP and raping every other build)?

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Thomek on January 16, 2011, 06:45:19 am

You forgot:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Kaelaen on January 16, 2011, 08:20:04 am

Somewhat agree, as Grey has mentioned and speaking from the point of view of an archer, I have never seen archers whining about shields.  It's a very safe class to play, and if you're good in manual blocking well... that's just player skill and as mentioned that's the more important factor anyway.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Casimir on January 16, 2011, 01:36:31 pm

Quote from: Grey on January 16, 2011, 03:45:45 am

putting points into IF or shield just shows a faulty philosophy

I whole heartily disagree with what you have said there.


IF is useful for tin cans as it makes the plate is far more useful.  IF in sheilders is debatable but there will always come a time where in a cluster fuck someone get behind you and with no iron flesh that could be the end of your round.

IF is not useless and pointless on pure melee characters as mistakes are inevitable and why should they be the end of your game?

The rest of your post is pretty much spot on. :)

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Noble Crassius on January 16, 2011, 04:40:52 pm

When you quote, put in the whole sentence to avoid distortion.
"I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion."

you made your opinion, one with no facts behind it at all, a balancing factor - never do this

"You forgot to mention what also balances it out, slow reload speed even with points invested but thats ok too imo."
I was saying in my opinion that it's ok that we still reload quite slow even after paying balls high upkeep and prices. Cuz we should . THAT opinion is based on the fact that we do reload slow.

See the difference between my opinion and yours?

and yes other than that I agree with everything you said.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: Stokes on January 17, 2011, 03:28:48 am

Quote from: Fallen_CrassiusV2 on January 16, 2011, 04:40:52 pm

When you quote, put in the whole sentence to avoid distortion.
"I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion."

you made your opinion, one with no facts behind it at all, a balancing factor - never do this

"You forgot to mention what also balances it out, slow reload speed even with points invested but thats ok too imo."
I was saying in my opinion that it's ok that we still reload quite slow even after paying balls high upkeep and prices. Cuz we should . THAT opinion is based on the fact that we do reload slow.

See the difference between my opinion and yours?

and yes other than that I agree with everything you said.

I stated my "facts". If it wasn't clear enough I can edit my original post.  Being able to aim indefinitely allows for greater precision firing which means greater accuracy and a greater chance of getting a headshot. As you pointed out, however, the ability of archers to fire so much faster means that they have more chances of getting a headshot, which could theoretically mean it's "easier" to get a headshot. To be honest, neither of us have any numerical/empirical evidence to fully prove our hypotheses. Both of our "evidence" and "facts" are PURELY ANECDOTAL, which I had hoped that I had made clear, but I am willing to edit my post if you feel I did not make that clear enough.

Btw, this seems to be a pretty nit-picky detail we are discussing, and I don't think it really furthers the discussion about infantry balance as a whole.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: UrLukur on January 17, 2011, 04:34:40 am

Aside from the fact that if 2h/Pole is shield counter, and shield is archers/xbows counter, most archers will go 2h or pole to have fighting chances against shielders (sometimes an edge).

So this type of balance is flawed, until there will be implemented good features that will made 1h viable for archers. Best way is to make shielders power level as high as pole/2h. Then, shielders will have edge over archers, poles will have edge against cavalry, and 2h will be good support class, and still better against cav than 1h.

In such situation, archers will have actual choice between 3 options - 1h, 2h and poles. Now 1h ranged are extinct.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: PhantomZero on January 17, 2011, 03:55:39 pm

I think you missed the biggest point regarding Crossbows vs. Archery.  Archery is there to deal with the crossbows/light infantry/cav/throwers, while crossbows can pound away at the heavy infantry/heavy horse and inflict tons of damage.

Throwing is perfectly fine the way it is at the moment while I would love to see a reduction in the number of slots(or an increase in the weight for every slot used, similar to carrying extra shields) as everyone and their brother can carry a weapon for every situation. Be it a pike for horses, a can opener of your choice, a shield, and some darts or two-handed sword for good measure. You don't actually need any points in polearms to use the pike effectively against horses.

On Cavalry:
The biggest problem which makes cavalry "unbalanced" is the lack of discipline. If people formed groups a cavalryman wouldn't even approach them, because after horsebumping two people they would become stuck in a blob of swords and spears.

When you have a bunch of people spread out to the far winds, it is very easy for a single cavalryman to run through aimlessly hacking away from one side to the other racking up the kills. Light cavalry are supposed to be the flankers, the guys who run down the mob and strike at unprotected archers.

I think cavalry was nerfed too much, too quickly,

An increase in cost:
People only use the palfrey or rouncey now if they want to still use armor, courser or steppe if they are wearing a dress.

Reduction of speed and manueverability:
There goes the slim defense against ranged opponents.

Reduced charge damage:
This was done to the point it is almost useless again mostly due to the decrease of speed double-nerfing charge damage, I thought the high charge damage was the reason for putting in team horsebumping, pick either: High Damage, Friendly Fire, or Low Damage, No Friendly Fire.

Removal of the Long Great Lance:
The entire reason this thing was added to the game was because the Great Lance lost it's thrust. Please bring back the Great Lance's thrust if you are getting rid of the Lance of Compensation. Alternatively, remove the "Press X to couch lance" and cooldown timers instead of returning the thrust, as that was the reason for keeping the Great Lance thrust in the Vanilla beta.

Cavalry will always top the scoreboards because they can cherry pick when and where to attack, you are always fighting against a good cavalryman on their terms and if you suddenly get the upperhand they run off. It is heavily dependent upon map type which is sorely lacking on most NA servers which are filled with city streets and castle-type maps.

Title: Re: “Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.
Post by: EponiCo on January 17, 2011, 09:41:21 pm

2h/pole are not shield counters. With many 2h/poles the top level shields can't be broken (at least that was prepatch), and guess what, spam, feints, range (or attacks glitching through the clearly held shield/block) are all things the twohander has to deal with, too, and he hasn't one button to defend from all, or at that point for divining the attack direction when he runs into a bush. That and the much higher risk to get a throwing axe in the face simply necessitates that 2h have more killing potential imo.
But real breakdown would look like this:
Greatswords/Spears are versatile and best against two handers and killing in group, ok against shield, but inferior choice 1vs1
Pikelikes are best for poking unaware people and making greatsworders/cav run away from your group, but it's such an uphill fight against huscarl shield scimitar facehuggers, you'd be sooner juggling snowballs in hell.
Clubs are (at least in theory, which may not be the case with polearm clubs and crushthrough) inferior for fighting against every other weapon choice but deal massive damage to armor.
Which leaves axes as real shield counter, but if you look at their stats, a 1h without shield has some real advantages against them.

And yeah, a 2h player can stack greatsword+hammer+shield, but just so can 1h player stack 1h+throw or archer stack bow+greatsword (which is btw. since it needs 1 slot and several skillpoints less than shield not because it kills every shielder) or ninja stack agility...  :wink: